Lords Sitting of 2 August 1897

TURKEY AND GREECE.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: I desire to ask the noble Marquess at the head of the Government—to whom I have given private notice of the Question—whether he is able to give us any further information as to the peace negotiations between Turkey and Greece, and also as to the condition of affairs in Crete. I hope, from what we see in the public prints, that there may be some progress visible in that which has now been going on so long that I should think most people, and even the noble Marquess himself, must find their patience very sorely tried. If, as is reported, the question of the German bondholders has been arranged, one may hope that that alone will advance matters one stage. But I am free to say that, even when I hear that an agreement has been come to, I shall not believe the Turkish troops to have left or to be leaving Thessaly until I know positively that they are actually on the move. As to Crete, I fear it is not very likely that any satisfactory information can be given, and I venture to express a strong hope that, if the other negotiations should be brought to a successful termination, Her Majesty's Government will use all their influence to bring about some amelioration of affairs in that unhappy island. I feel this the more because I would not put the importance of a settlement of Cretan affairs merely as a question of humanity. I feel strongly the necessity for a satisfactory settlement of the affairs of the island in the interests of the peace of Europe; because Crete has long been, as every one knows, a point of great danger. And if, at the present time, some arrangements should be patched up of an unsatisfactory nature, I think every one will foresee that probably no long time may elapse before there will be further difficulties and disturbances. One can hardly hope that an island which has been so turbulent will all at once find itself in a condition of peace, but if in the future there should
50
be further agitation and difficulties there, the great object is to disconnect it with the affairs of the Ottoman Empire, so that if there should be any movement there it should not be liable to lead to far-reaching consequences such as to be even dangerous to the peace of Europe generally. I will say no more. I do not wish to initiate a discussion, but I thought that before Parliament is prorogued the noble Marquess should have an opportunity of making a statement on the subject.
THE PRIME MINISTER (The Marquess of SALISBURY): I am not in the least surprised at the desire of the noble Earl for information on this subject, and I think many persons must feel that they are in the position which the noble Earl assigned to me of having their patience sorely tried by the length of the negotiations which are going on. But there is only one matter in excuse for the delay which I must urge. The peace which we are trying to arrange is not the ordinary arrangement between the conqueror and the conquered country. If it were so, probably a settlement would have been arrived at before now, but the territory which has been conquered by the Turkish Army is a territory which was assigned to Greece by international arrangements, and therefore other Powers besides Greece have something to say in respect to its disposal. That introduces the complexity and multiplicity of negotiations which may account, to some extent at least, for the length of time which has elapsed. The Powers from the first all proposed to themselves this general line of action—that Thessaly was not to be retroceded to Turkey; and that, speaking in the most general manner, Greek communities which had not been under Turkish rule were not to be placed under Turkish rule. On the other side it was recognised that the Sultan had a right to some security against incursions, and provocations similar to those which brought on the present war, and that a rectification of the frontier in a strategic sense was a very reasonable demand. The object of the Powers has been to reconcile those two aims, and at present I believe we have arrived at the point—though I share a little of the scepticism of the noble Earl as to accomplished facts which are not really accomplished—we have, I say arrived at this point, that the Ottoman Government has accepted the strategic

51
line that has been traced by the Military Attaches of the various Embassies acting together, and has consented to relinquish Thessaly to Greece. That, so far as the permanent disposal of the controversy goes, is a satisfactory issue. But there is also a temporary portion of the controversy. According to many modern precedents the Turkish Government has a right to an indemnity for a war which they undoubtedly did not bring on; and, on the other hand, the payment of such an indemnity by Greece is accompanied by many difficulties, which the noble Earl will readily understand. Therefore there is some scruple on the part of the Turkish Government and some tendency to demand that, apart from the territorial arrangements which will be pronounced by the ultimate treaty of peace, there shall be a reservation of strategic points to be held until the indemnity has been paid. I say that this is the proposal of the Turkish Government. I cannot at present say what the determination of the Powers will be. The matter is still, to a certain extent, under controversy, and that is the precise point at which we are arrived in respect to the territorial arrangement. In regard to the indemnity, no one doubts that Greece must pay an indemnity, but the extent to which she is competent to pay it is a matter of considerable controversy. And there comes in that mysterious and difficult question to which the noble Earl alluded, namely, the question of the German bondholders. I do not think any international duty lies on Europe to provide for the payment of the German bondholders. But, on the other hand, it is necessary to admit that so long as the German bondholders are not paid the credit of Greece in the European market will be exceedingly small. We have to deal with these two conflicting considerations. Some form of control, I imagine, of the Greek sources of revenue will be inevitable, if the money is to be provided which will satisfy the just claims upon the Greek Exchequer, but I cannot say that any negotiation in that direction has advanced very far, and I freely admit that it may be the cause of very considerable delay. However, I think we are in sight of a probable issue, in which by some arrangement or other Greece will have to provide sufficient money to satisfy the indemnity which the
52
Powers should consider just, and when that is done I hope all the Greek communities of Thessaly will, up to the strategic line, return under Greek dominion. I do not like to speak more definitely than that, for I wish in what I say not to go beyond that which I believe to be established. With respect to Crete, the general feeling of the Powers has been that it is very little use making definite arrangements in respect to that island, or even entering into negotiations as to arrangements, until the more important controversy between Greece and Turkey hag arrived at an adjustment. The attitude at present of the Cretan Christians is not unfavourable. They have formed for themselves a, sort of organisation, which appears to be of a pacific character; and if we had only them, to deal with, or only the Moslems to deal with, our difficulties would be very slight indeed. But I am afraid that the prospect of agreement between these two sections is no nearer than it has been for many decades; indeed, for many centuries. If it were possible to dig a ditch across the island, with the Christians on one side and the Moslems on the other, I think we should arrive at a satisfactory solution; but I am afraid I see no probability of so drastic an arrangement as that. I can only say that it is our earnest object to set up an autonomy which we have promised, and to take care that it is an autonomy which is just to both sections of the population. We are not inclined to admit that because the Moslems are in a minority therefore their interests are to be neglected. Both they and the Christians have an equal right upon our care. All our desires would be satisfied if we could provide any arrangement which would open to us the prospect of their living together in some tolerable harmony in the years before us; but how far we shall attain to that end I dare not prophesy. I quite agree with the noble Earl that Crete is in a dangerous position; but the danger of the position does not arise from its being mixed up in the affairs of the Ottoman Empire. It arises from that terrible division, more of creed than of race, which has cursed Crete, and which may require a great deal more power than the power of all the

53
Sovereigns of Europe together permanently to banish. All I can promise in respect to Crete is that we shall fulfil the promise we have given, and that we shall do our best to secure peace and equal rights to all in that island before we turn our backs to it and abandon it. (Cheers.)

CONGESTED DISTRICTS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Lord BALFOUR), in moving the Second Reading of this Bill, said that he need not labour the principle that it was for the good of the whole country that special assistance should be given to the people of those parts of the country which were poorer and in a more backward condition than the general body of the population. That principle was admitted, and had often been acted upon, and he did not think there would be any reluctance on the part of the House to give assent to the Bill on that ground at any rate. The Bill dealt with a sum of £35,000 a year. Of that sum £15,000 was set apart specially for the Highlands and Islands of Scotland under the Agricultural Rating Act of last year. The balance of £20,000 was in lieu of the sum which had appeared from year to year upon the Estimates presented by the Treasury to Parliament for the special benefit of the Highlands and Islands of Scotland. It had been thought better to consolidate those two sums and to include within the purview of the Bill most of the objects which had been dealt with, in the expenditure of the £20,000, and some others besides which were new. The object of the Bill would be found in the 4th Clause. They varied very considerably in importance. From some of them a good deal might be hoped; and he believed none of them were useless. It had been thought better to take somewhat wide powers, even though they might not be exorcised at first to the full, rather than, after having passed the Bill, to find that some special object which was wanted in some particular place was not within the power of the Commission to deal with. The area over which the Bill extended was comprised in the Crofter Counties of the North and North-west of Scotland. It was, of course, obvious to anyone who knew those districts
54
that not all of them were equally necessitous. In fact there were large tracts in those counties in which it would be an abuse to spend public money in the way in which it was proposed under this Bill, for they could not fairly be described as congested districts. They had thought it better not to attempt a hard and fast definition of a congested district, and had accordingly provided that a congested district should mean any crofting parish or crofting parishes, or any area in a crofting parish or crofting parishes, which the Commissioners, having regard to the population and valuation, should determine to be a congested district. They had found that, to adopt the definition in the Irish Act would, owing to the disturbing element brought in by the large amount of sporting rents, have excluded some districts which stood most in need of assistance. They proposed to set up a mixed body to administer the fund so that they might draw on the experience of several departments which existed in Scotland at present. The Commission would contain the Secretary for Scotland, the Under Secretary, the Chairman of the Local Government Board for the time being, the Chairman of the Fishery Board, and the Chairman of the Crofters' Commission, and there would also be power to appoint three other members from time to time. By its constitution the Commission would command valuable knowledge and experience and at the same time undue expense would be avoided, and the body would be sufficiently amenable to Parliamentary control in the expenditure of this sum of money.
LORD TWEEDMOUTHsaid he ventured to re-echo the congratulations with which this Bill had been received in the other House. Its objects had been universally approved by Scotchmen of all sections. He believed the policy adopted would lead to the greatest possible advantage in the congested districts, but he was sorry that power had not been taken to acquire land compulsorily for the purposes of the Bill. He thought there had been an exaggerated estimate of the amount of land available in the Highlands to which crofters and cottars might be transported, and while, no doubt, great advantage might accrue to the congested districts by removing

55
some of the population, it was by no means certain that the step would be equally welcomed in the places to which these people were removed. He was afraid the Commission would have some difficulty in discriminating between the various claims which would be made. The Commission was a very official one and practically amounted to the ipse dixit of the Secretary for Scotland, but as he had great faith in the judgment and discrimination of the Secretaries for Scotland of both Parties, he was not prepared to press that objection. He was sure that Highland proprietors would endeavour to assist the Scotch Office in making these proposals a success.
THE EARL OF WEMYSSsaid he could not re-echo the view taken by his noble Friend, but his object was simply to ask what would be the cost of this scheme? The cost, he imagined, was to come out if the Consolidated Fund, not out of ates.
LORD BALFOUR: Not out of rates; out of the fund of £35 provided in the Bill.
THE EARL OF WEMYSSsaid it would come practically out of the Exchequer, and he thought it desirable, therefore, that they should know the exact sum that would be required.
LORD BALFOURsaid the exact sum that it would be open to the Commission to spend was £35,000, out of which sum the expenses of management and administration must be paid. While £20,000 came undoubtedly from the Exchequer, £15,000 was, so to speak, Scotch money, taken out of the sum which was devoted to Scotland in respect of the grant which was given to England last year for the relief of local rates. He was not prepared to say what the expenses of administration would be; there would be the salary of the secretary which probably would not be a very large one, the travelling expenses, and such expenditure as might be necessary for professional assistance, engineering, and so on. A Report would be presented to Parliament each year.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIANsaid he had expressed his very great pleasure at this proposal when it was made. He only wished that when he had the honour to represent Scotland he had had such a fund to deal with. He thought the present proposal was partly
56
based on what was done at that time. He thought the fund was sufficient for the purposes contemplated at present, although he would be glad of course if it were possible to make it a little larger. He was afraid the work of removing crofters to less congested districts would give rise to a great deal of friction. If they were to deal with the Island of Lewis, for example, they would have to remove 15,000 to 20,000 people, and where these people could be placed passed his comprehension, and supposing that they could do it, it would hardly satisfy the people living in the place to which they were removed. He should have liked to have seen the Board which was to be constituted rather less official, but it would be very difficult to find a Board in Scotland which would do the work equally well. He would prefer that the Secretary for Scotland had not been Chairman of the Board. He might exercise all his powers as Secretary for Scotland if someone else were Chairman of the Board in Edinburgh, and his position as a Minister would be less implicated in the Commission by separation from it. He himself was glad the Bill had been introduced, and he hoped it would be read a Second time.
Bill read a Second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.

METROPOLITAN WATER COMPANIES BILL.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER (Lord JAMES OF HEREFORD), in moving the Second Reading of this Bill, remarked that at the commencement of last Session the Government presented a Bill very different from the present dealing with the water supply of London. It proposed to create a water trust composed of representatives of the London County Council and of the outside areas, which were supplied by eight metropolitan water companies. The Government believed that Bill would have produced a good effect. But there was not time to deal with it in the House of Commons. When the subject had to be reconsidered by the Government at the commencement of the present

57
Session they found that much had occurred during the Recess. Representatives of the London County Council, or rather of the majority of that body, had approached the representatives of the outside areas. The County Councils of those areas had no power in relation to water supply within their own area, but, approached by the legal representatives of the London County Council, they had made certain agreements with the latter. The London County Council being a water governing body, while the County Councils outside had no control over water supply, the agreements were not legally valid without the approval of Parliament. But by means of these agreements the outside areas secured terms so advantageous, if carried out, that they would never be likely to oppose any Bill the London County Council might promote for the purchase of the undertakings of the water companies. The Government offered to protect the interests of the outside areas, but the latter, having secured advantages by informal and invalid agreements, preferred not to be protected. While the Government felt that the control of the water supply should be in the hands of the local authorities, it had the great duty cast upon it to see that in the formation of a body representing those authorities the interest of the water consumer should be carefully guarded. Looking at the matter practically, if the London County Council introduced Bills to acquire the property of the water companies, all the agreements entered into with the outside areas would have to be scheduled and considered by Parliamentary Committees, but that would not safeguard the public interests. The London County Council would appear on the one side and the water companies on the other. A locus standi would, no doubt, be given to the representatives of the outside areas, but their support to the plans of the London County Council would have been secured. Technically a locus standi might be obtained for individual ratepayers to oppose, but where was the patriotic ratepayer who would bear the enormous expense of appearing in the interests of the rest of the rate paying community and say, "I protest against this Bill as casting undue expense upon us?" If the Government consented to the Bill going
58
before a Committee, it could not be represented before it. Under these circumstances the Government felt they ought to see that a full inquiry into the proposed arrangements for the distribution of water should take place, and they had decided that the best and most impartial inquiry would be effected by means of a Commission. Such a Commission would not technically have the contending parties—the promoters of Bills and the water companies, who had contended so often in respect of the metropolitan water supply—before it, but would have only to consider the public interest. The Commission would inquire into matters which would never be inquired into by a Parliamentary Committee. It would consider what were the best governing bodies for the London County Council area and the surrounding areas; the most economical method of distributing the water supply; and the practical feasibility of distributing the water. This would involve important engineering questions, and the consideration of how far, with eight companies to deal with, having central works belonging to them, water could best be distributed in the eight different areas. A strong Commission had been appointed, presided over by a Member of this House, and having many experts upon it who would bring their knowledge impartially to bear on these points. The Commission had already been sitting. The appointment of the Commission did not quite conclude the duty cast on the Government. The inquiry, and the legislation which would be founded upon the Report of the Commission, would take time, but he hoped no very long time. Complaints—whether well founded or not he could not say—had been made from certain localities of insufficiency of supply and neglect on the part of the water companies. The Bill sought to deal with any complaints that might be justly made, and to provide the public with a convenient practical remedy. It placed in the hands of the Railway Commissioners, who had had great practical experience in the discharge of somewhat similar duties, the power of hearing any complaint against the water companies which might be brought before them, and they would have power, if the complaint proved well founded, to order the company in default to fulfil within a certain

59
time its duty or pay a penalty for its non-fulfilment, and the great legal power of the Railway Commission—power of attachment against the property of the company—could be put in force until the duty had been fulfilled. This was a new provision, and it was hoped it would cause the water companies to fulfil their duties to the utmost. It was proposed to give to the local authorities, which would be the London County Council within its area and the county councils outside that area, power to make complaint on behalf of the public at the expense of the respective areas, to see that the causes of complaint should be entirely removed, and to advocate the cause of the public before the Railway Commission until there could be no matter of complaint against the water companies. There were other provisions of a minor character in the same direction, but these were the two main proposals of the Bill. The Government submitted the Bill as a practical measure of utility, and one which should be productive of great benefits to the water consumers of London.
LORD TWEEDMOUTHthought the subject was worth some discussion, because it afforded a proof of how great a difference there might be between promise and performance even in the case of a powerful Government with a big majority at its back. When the Government came into office they took up the subject and were determined to carry it through, and accordingly a Bill was introduced by his noble Friend opposite to effect this purpose. He was afraid he could not quite accept his noble Friend's Utopian description of that Bill. He should have said that even when that Bill was before the House it had the curious distinction of pleasing nobody, and when before the Commons he did not agree that it was simply lost for want of time, but rather that it went unwept to its grave. Even in the autumn of last year, to a deputation of Conservative London Members, Mr. Balfour said there was urgent necessity of dealing with this subject during this Session of Parliament, and they were led to believe that the Government would introduce a Bill dealing with the subject in the House of Commons, and carry it through. They
60
were, therefore, astonished to find that the subject had once more been relegated to a Commission. He had always supposed that the device of sending subjects like this to a Commission was that which was adopted by weak and tottering Governments, and yet the four subjects of water, liquor, old age pensions, and the Irish financial relations had been sent to Commissions by Her Majesty's Government, which they understood to be the most united and best supported of the present century. Of course, having been relegated to a Commission, the Government were prevented from dealing with the more important aspect of the question until the Commission reported, but he believed that even in the temporary Measure now before them, they might have gone somewhat further. He admitted that there was something to be gained by this Bill. There was, for instance, a new Court, before whom persons having complaints against the water companies, could go. He should, however, have liked his noble Friend—than whom none had had greater experience of litigation—to have told them something as to the probable cost of the proceedings before the Court, and the celerity with which the cases would be conducted. Again, there was an important provision which enabled local authorities to come to the monetary aid of litigants before the Railway Commissioner in these water cases. But he thought that when dealing with important questions something should be done to reduce the extraordinary and peculiar privileges at present enjoyed by the water companies. The companies were allowed to have a monopoly of the element which next to air was most wanted by the inhabitants of the metropolis, and to make large profits out of which to pay large dividends, and yet at the same time they were allowed privileges which he did not think were enjoyed by any other public company.
THE EAEL OF WEMYSS: They are under Act, are they not?
LORD TWEEDMOUTHsaid the water companies were allowed to increase the charge for their water rate according as the value of property increased without giving one single extra gallon of supply to the people inhabiting particular houses. Parliament allowed the companies to pre-charge for their

61
supplies, and if the water was not paid for at that pre-dated period, to cut off the water from the inhabitants at the particular dwelling. Again, the companies were allowed to exact payment for water which never had been supplied at all, such as in the case of the great failure in the winter of 1895 (January and February), and during the drought of the same summer. In this Bill steps might have been taken to mitigate these evils, and to limit the power of the companies to cut off water for non-payment of the rate before really the charge became due for the supply of water. Again he thought the Government might have provided that one of the subjects that was to be brought before the Railway Commission should be that of deciding whether there had been a failure of supply of water to consumers during certain periods, and if there had been they should be enabled to step in and say for that period they should not be entitled to make a charge. He would appeal to the noble Lord even now to make these concessions, which were not asked for alone by violent Radicals or Progressive members of the County Council, but were strongly pressed for by Members of their own House and household. These were the provisions that were pressed for by the distinguished son of the noble Marquess opposite (the Marquess of Salisbury), whose career in the House of Commons both friend and foe alike now admired and congratulated him upon. Again, there was a son of a water Lord in that House, Mr. Lionel Holland, who also pressed for concessions of this sort in the House of Commons. He hoped that even yet the noble Lord might be able to see his way to offer some concessions on these points, and by doing so he would make the Bill infinitely more valuable and do something to console the water consumers of London for the long wait they were experiencing in having a matter so closely allied to their health and prosperity, dealt with by the Government.
THE EARL OF WEMYSSobserved that it had always been a wonder to him how the water question had been brought up by the present Government last Session and this when, because for the two whole years Lord Balfour, who was
62
a member of the Cabinet, was at the head of a Commission which inquired into this very subject and which reported that the water was excellent, that the supply on the whole was sufficient, and with very little addition to the present system of the water companies there was water enough for 12,000,000 people for 40 years. No doubt the position of Lord Tweed mouth was intelligible, for in his heart he wished to municipalise water. The noble Lord, he believed, was still a County Councillor, and the County Council wanted to get everything they possibly could—tramways, water, and everything else municipalised. He ventured to think it was not by municipalisation, not by borough administration—for even under the administration of a corporation there had been danger of water famine—but by private enterprise should this question be settled. By private enterprise, by the establishment of water companies had London obtained its water supply, and but for this private enterprise Londoners would be drinking Thames water with all its impurities, whereas London had water certainly as good and probably better than any other town. He was at a loss to understand what all this talk about legislation meant, unless it meant that County Councils or Municipalities were to have entire control of the water supply. That appeared to be the main intention. He would like Lord Balfour to tell the House whether, in his opinion, there was necessity for fresh legislation, and if he was convinced that the Report his Commission issued some two or three years ago was without foundation, and that some great change was required? What ground was there for these predatory proposals? The water companies undertook to find water upon certain terms, and those terms were ratified by Parliament, and what right was there without compensation, as his noble Friend proposed, to take from the companies rights and privileges accorded by Act of Parliament? At the bottom of the whole thing, there was the desire of the County Council to take the control into their hands.
LORD BALFOURsaid there was really nothing inconsistent in the Bill with the Report of the Commission.
THE EARL OF WEMYSS: But is it necessary?
LORD BALFOURsaid the reference to that Commission was simply to inquire whether there was water enough in the Thames and Lea for the London district, having regard to the growth of population. There was nothing referred to the Commission in regard to what authority should have administration and this Bill dealt with the authority which was to administer the supply whether County Council or other body. There was therefore nothing inconsistent between the Report he had the honour to present and the further stage now represented by this Bill. So far as he had been challenged, he still believed that the Report was as true to-day as it was on the day it was signed and, further he contended that no Report on a subject of equal importance had better withstood the cohesion to which it had been subjected.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (Viscount CROSS)said the noble lord had remarked upon how the Government might have done this or that or something else, and he might be allowed to say that if Parliament had passed the Bill he introduced in 1880, by this time everybody would have been perfectly satisfied with the water supply.
Bill read a Second time, and Committed to a Committee of the whole House To-morrow.

POST OFFICE AND TELEGRAPHS (FACILITIES AND PENSIONS) BILL.
Considered in Committee (according to Order); Bill reported without Amendment; Standing Committee negatived; and Bill to be read 3a To-morrow.
METROPOLITAN POLICE (BORROWING POWERS) BILL.
Considered in Committee (according to Order); Bill reported without Amendment; Standing Committee negatived; and Bill to be read 3a To-morrow.
NAVAL WORKS BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
OUTDOOR RELIEF (IRELAND) BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

FOREIGN PRISON-MADE GOODS BILL.
LORD BALFOUR, in asking the House to Read this Bill a Second time, briefly stated the reasons that had induced Her Majesty's Government to deal with the subject. The purpose of the Bill was to prevent the importation of foreign prison-made goods. Our own prisoners were not allowed to compete with outside labour, and Her Majesty's Government could see no reason why goods made in foreign convict establishments should be allowed to enter into trade competition. We were under no obligation to provide this market, and it would be entirely contrary to policy to continue to do so. It was obviously right and proper that we should go as far as we possibly could to stop such trade without interfering with legitimate trade and industry. There could be no doubt whatever of the opinion of the House of Commons on the subject. In February 1895, during the tenancy of office by the late Government, this Resolution was proposed, and after an evening's Debate was accepted by the then President of the Board of Trade:—
"That in the opinion of this House it is incumbent on Her Majesty's Government, in the interest of the industrial classes of the United Kingdom, at once to take steps to restrict the importation of goods made in foreign prisons and by the enforced labour of convicts and felons."
After its acceptation by the late Government this Resolution was unanimously adopted by the late House of Commons Since that time a General Election had taken place, and without saying that the subject was given any very great prominence, still it would be found on looking over the addresses of those who were now Members, and those who were then candidates for membership of the other House, that a very considerable number of addresses mentioned this subject, and with still greater frequency it was

65
referred to in speeches at election meetings and in the questions and answers that formed part of such proceedings. Since the accession to power of the present Government, a Committee appointed by the late President of the Board of Trade had finished its Inquiry. He did not wish to attach undue importance to the proceeding, but after the House of Commons accepted such a Resolution as he had read, one might feel considerably surprised that it was thought necessary to appoint a Committee at all; however, that course was taken, and the Committee had presented its Report. Since the present Government came into Office efforts had been made to come to an understanding on the subject with the Governments of other countries, but they were not entirely successful, and it was necessary therefore to have recourse to legislation. The facts would not he thought be disputed that some classes of goods made in foreign prisons, or if actually in institutions we should know as prisons, by forced labour of the convict classes, did come into competition in this country with the productions of outside labour. If there was any doubt about that it would be removed by the Report from Mr. Reginald Power, the second Secre-to the Embassy at Berlin, to the effect that the work of 29,200 convicts in Prussia, Bavaria and the Thuringian States competed with outside industry in various trades, and in Prussia alone 8,000 convicts were employed in such labour, and Mr. Power said there was a great deal of opposition to the employment of prison labour in productive work in competition with private industry. Mr. Strachy, Charge d'Affaires in Saxony, reported that in 1892 4,000 Saxon prisoners were employed for 1,350,000 days at the rate of 8d. per day, and there was such complaint and denunciation of the system that legislative restrictions were placed on the sale of prison productions within certain districts. Mr. Poulett also described the system by which prisoners were hired out at rates varying from 3d. to 1s. per day, according to their capacity for work, or by which payment was made for the finished articles, and he also described how he had seen prisoners at work on various articles from English models before them, and he enumerated the various articles thus imitated. It
66
seemed almost adding insult to injury that goods should not only be made by prisoners to compete with our free labour, but in imitation of English models to suit the English market, while such competition was not permitted in the country where the goods were produced. He did not think this could be defended; he should be surprised if any noble Lord should maintain this was right in principle. It might be alleged that the attempt to stop this importation would cause an undue interference with trade, and it had been said that it would infringe the principle of free trade, but that he altogether denied. It was no interference with free trade to endeavour to stop the competition of goods made by subsidised labour. It was sometimes said this matter was small in amount and not worth taking account of. It did not seem to him to matter whether the traffic was large or small. If it were to be alleged that the traffic was a large one, then there was the larger case for putting a stop to it. If it was only small then it seemed to him much better to stop it before it had time to grow up and before anything in the nature of vested interests could be said to have grown up in regard to it. He did not say it was a gigantic evil, but what he did say was that as a practical question of business, that as a practical question of wages in some departments of labour—principally in the production of mats and brushes—it was a matter of great importance to some people. He put it as high as this—that to stop this traffic was a question of justice, and it did not matter whether it was a large traffic or not, because few people were just as entitled as many to justice if their legitimate interests were interfered with. He anticipated one other objection—that the Bill which was now proposed would not be effectual. That was a matter of opinion and of prophecy. Whether the Government or those who made this criticism were right could not now be determined. For his part, he believed it would be to a very considerable extent effectual; but, whether effectual or not, he attached the greatest importance to Parliament declaring that it was a thing which should be stopped. If the Bill was not effectual, then he hoped they might be able to devise something which might be more effectual still. If noble Lords opposite said it was not an effectual

67
Measure, he was sure they were not jealous of allowing them any credit in the matter. If they would help to make it more effectual he was sure their assistance would be welcomed on that side of the House. If the House was good enough to give the Bill its Second Reading he should, in conformity, with a pledge given in another place, move Amendments for the purpose of excepting goods in transit, or not imported for the purposes of trade, or not of a description manufactured in the United Kingdom. They did not wish to go further than was absolutely necessary, but they did say that, as a matter of general principle, where goods produced in this way came into competition with legitimate free labour on this side, they were only doing what was right to take every step in their power to put a stop to that competition. He moved the Second Reading of the Bill.
LORD THRINGsaid that, as Chairman of the Committtee appointed to inquire into the whole subject, he ventured to make a few observations on the Bill. He was told that they were only doing justice, if there was a grievance, to remove that grievance. But, supposing there was the grievance, he could not understand how they were required to bring in a Bill of this kind. As a general rule, a Bill affecting trade seriously was brought in on the complaint of some influential bodies, or on some admitted grievance. What was the genesis of this Bill? In 1894 a sensational article was published in The Hardwareman with regard to prison labour. On the initiative of that paper, the subject was taken up by his Friend, Sir Howard Vincent, who brought in a Bill in the Session of 1894 exactly in the terms of the present Bill. It did not proceed to a Second Reading, but in the Session of 1895, on exactly the same evidence, Sir Howard Vincent passed a Motion in which the Government were asked to restrict the importation of prison made goods. No further Parliamentary proceedings were taken on the Motion, and no further evidence had been adduced except that which was produced before the Committee in 1895. Therefore the whole of the subject matter of this Bill rested upon the evidence that was produced before that Committee. What was that evidence? They had not the advantage of hearing Mr. Towers, nor the
68
other gentleman whom Lord Balfour had mentioned. They had the advantage of hearing Mr. Pollitt, who was in fact the correspondent of The Hardwareman. They put 12 advertisements into the provincial papers in May; 29 into papers of other descriptions in June; they asked Chambers of Commerce and Committees of the Trades Unions to come forward, and yet they had only evidence that two trades could really complain—the brush-makers and mat-makers. With regard to the brush-makers' trade they found that the evidence proved beyond all possible contradiction that though there might have been some diminution in the cheaper sort of brushes the trade had not been injured at all, and could not be injured by prison labour, because it was not cheaper than free labour. They proved, further, that what was cheaper than either free labour or prison labour were the machines which were making an enormous number of brushes in England. Therefore if they could disprove the case of there being no injury to the trade they did disprove it. Then came the mat-makers. It was proved, no doubt, that there had been some competition, which the witnesses, rightly or wrongly, attributed to prison-made mats, but there again they found that free labour in Belgium, where it was asserted these mats came from, was cheaper than prison labour, and that therefore the only effect of stopping prison-made labour would have been to have set on foot free labour factories in Belgium, with exactly the same result to the English market. Therefore they said, and he repeated it in that House, that there was no case whatever. So that the whole thing came to this, that in two trades only, relating to two countries only, Germany and Belgium, there was some complaint of prison-made goods competing with their manufactures, and that those complaints were absolutely and completely proved not to exist, and could not possibly exist. In order to investigate whether any steps could be taken to stop it, they asked the Commissioners of Customs whether declarations could be relied upon, and they said they believed they would have no effect. What was the "sufficient evidence," according to the President of the Board of Trade, the Commissioners of Customs were to require in this matter? Any rival manufacturer might

69
trump up any case he liked before the Commissioners of Customs; he might delay his rival's manufactures and there were no means of punishing the false witness, however false he might be. He admitted that one of the witnesses did say that they could enforce the Act if they gave bribes high enough, and had informers corrupt enough. They were to go in for a system of espionage of the most villainous description in order to keep down a competition that did not exist. He was most surprised to hear that the President of the Board of Trade was reported to have said that this Bill extended to the Colonies, and that the expression "foreign goods" under this Bill and in the principal Act included the Colonies. Had they had all this talk about a United Empire, to be told that the Colonists were foreigners, and that British subjects were to be treated as if they were foreigners? As far as he could make out there was not the slightest ground for believing that any Judge would construe the word "foreign" as including the Colonies. He could only say that the statement of the President of the Board of Trade was the most extraordinary proposition he had ever heard of. This Bill rested upon no grounds whatever. It was proved that there was no grievance, that there could be no grievance, that the remedy was worse than the disease, and that the remedy could not be effectual. If the Prime Minister condescended, as he did sometimes condescend, to notice what he had said, he trusted the noble Marquess would not tell their Lordships that the evidence he had brought forward from this Committee was invalidated, because the Chairman was an old man, and perhaps an incompetent man. At all events, servility and incompetence were not infectious, and the Members who sat with him, and signed the Report were as competent to judge of evidence as any Member of that House. If that evidence were not disproved, this Bill was perfectly unnecessary—was a bogus and a sham. The Bill could do no good, and it must do harm to the commerce of the country. ["Hear, hear!"]
LOED FARRERsaid that his noble Friend had shown that on the facts there was not a shadow of foundation for the Bill. He himself proposed to challenge the principles on which the Bill was founded. Even if there had been a real
70
and serious competition with the trade of this country, arising out of goods made in foreign prisons, that would be no justification for the Bill. Why were the consumers of goods brought from abroad to be prevented from getting them on cheaper and better terms because those goods were prison-made? How far would the Government carry the principle? Were they going to inquire into all the circumstances under which goods were produced in foreign countries before allowing them to be imported? Some years ago the noble Marquess had tried to deal in that way with bounty-fed sugar, and he had enough of that attempt. He doubted whether, even with pressure from the West Indies, the noble Marquess would repeat the attempt. There was the question raised many years ago as to the exclusion of slave-made sugar, and it had been, recently proposed, in the same quarters from which the demand for this Bill proceeded, that we should inquire into the wages of men employed in foreign countries, and that goods should be excluded if the wages paid in the production were less than the wages paid in this country. He had heard that it had been proposed to the Admiralty and in the London County Council, that ships made on the Clyde should not be purchased because the wages paid there were lower than the wages in London. Was the Government going to that extent? Once entered upon the career of exclusion, the Government would be landed in every absurdity, and finally in the destruction of free trade. But the real foundation for this Bill was what had already been done in this country. At the bidding of the trade unions—and it was one of the worst biddings ever made—the Governments of both parties had consented to exclude English prison-made goods from the markets of this country. That was an offence against the common principles of humanity. How could prisoners be reformed unless they were taught to do something useful? And if they were allowed to make useful goods, those goods must be sold. But let the matter be looked at from the point of view, not of humanity in general, but of the British workman. Prisoners were sustained out of the taxes laid upon honest labour. Were they, then, to do nothing for their own maintenance? On the strictest economic grounds, and having regard to the pecuniary interests of

71
the free British workman, it was madness to prevent prisoners making useful goods, or those goods from being sold. But these prison-made goods were to be used in Government establishments. To do that was just as much to displace goods made by free labour as if they were sold in the open market, because Government establishments must buy in the open market if they did not buy from prisons. In speaking on the really admirable Workmen's Compensation Bill the other day, the Prime Minister said that some of the arguments in favour of that Bill were above the average level, while some were below it. The arguments in favour of this Bill were all of them much below the average level. The practice in England on which this Bill was really founded was a sham and a piece of administrative hypocrisy perpetrated at the bidding of the worst and most ignorant section of the trade unions. He had had conversations with some of the most efficient and able representatives of labour, who were of opinion that nothing could be worse for the workmen than the present practice. If this proved to be the case with workmen generally, the Government in this matter had not only committed a crime; they had made a blunder, and he hoped and believed that at the elections it would be found to be so. He was forcibly reminded of a conversation he had had with the late Mr. Bright soon after the last democratic Reform Bill had been passed, when Mr. Bright said,—
"The people have now the power in their own hands. If those whose duty it is to speak to them speak the truth, all will be well. But if, instead of speaking the truth to them, they flatter their prejudices, God help them both!"
THE PRIME MINISTER: I suppose that as both the noble Lords who have spoken did me the honour to allude to me, I must do what I should not otherwise have done—take a short part in the Debate. I must say that I think they were somewhat hard put to it for argument. The noble Lord who first spoke belaboured me because I had criticised a Bill of his on the pollution of the river streams. The noble Lord who has just sat down wont into questions of sugar bounties, which are perhaps a little antiquated now. Then he turned round upon me and attacked me for what I said on the Workmen's Compensation Bill.
LORD FARRER: No, I praised it.
THE PRIME MINISTER: Well, it is the same thing. [Laughter.] My only remark on these observations is that they do not seem to me to be very relevant to the question now before the House. The noble Lord who had just sat down was preaching a doctrine which he has preached for many a day. But the stream of time has gone past him, and he finds himself, as the somewhat belated advocate of a rather outworn doctrine, standing preaching in the wilderness. [Laughter and "No!" from Lord FARRER.] The noble Lord is the advocate of the consumer, and of nothing but the consumer. For him, the producer does not exist. The consumer is the only person to whom the State ought to pay any attention, or of whom it ought to take any care; and the producer is to be entirely neglected. I do not propose to enter upon such a thorny and difficult question. I only wish to point out that the noble Lord is taking up a position which in point of time is rather outworn, and that those who belong to the party of the supremacy of the consumer no longer have the undisputed dictation which they formerly enjoyed. The noble Lord gave us a refreshing flood of abstract principles to guide us through our hot and weary way. [Laughter]. I am very desirous to follow all those who will furnish, in this difficult study of politics, abstract principles which will spare us the labour of reflection or inquiry. But my difficulty is that, with all my desire to constitute myself a humble follower of high and great principles, I find that the great principles will run into each other's way. There is the noble Lord, with the great principle of ultra-free trade, as we used to worship it 30 or 40 years ago. On that principle he says that we ought to allow the prisons to become, on State credit and by the power of the State, manufacturers of saleable goods and sellers of those goods to the people. But there is my noble Friend opposite (the Earl of Wemyss), who will tell me that that is Socialism, and that, following the high principle of Individualism, and obeying the great doctrine of the liberty of the subject, I am bound to resist to the utmost any effort of the State to take over the duties which are discharged by the free individual in modern society. Which of the

73
two am I to obey? I do not understand how prison labour can be supported for purposes of sale on any but strongly Socialistic principles. I do not understand, again, how the sale of prison-made goods can be opposed on any ground which is not contrary to the high Free Trade doctrine preached by the noble Lord (Lord Farrer). I am bewildered and confused by this conflict of high principle, and all I can do is to deal with the little morsel of fact before me, which is that Governments, good or bad, honest or dishonest, to whichever side of the House they belonged, have coalesced in this—that they will not allow goods made in English prisons to be sold outside in competition with the ordinary labourer. Finding that to be the fact, for the same reason as I should object to a customs duty, if it had not an excise duty to back it, I say that if you have instituted this prohibition—and I find it there without the slightest chance of its being abandoned—the only thing you can do in consistency and justice to your own people is to deal with the foreigner and his prison-made goods precisely on the principles on which you deal with English prison-made goods. Being satisfied of that small fact, in this conflict of high doctrine I shall vote for the Second Reading of the Bill. ["Hear, hear!"]
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: The noble Marquess said that this principle was upheld by both Parties in the State. I suppose he was referring to the action of the late Government. In that case, I am bound to follow an example which has often been set on the other side, by saying that in that matter I did not agree with my Party. [Laughter.] Having freed myself thus far I have further to say that it must be remembered that since that Motion was passed there has been an Inquiry on the subject which certainly does not seem to have afforded any strong support to the Measure which was shadowed forth in the Resolution moved by Sir Howard Vincent. I am not going to put this matter very high. I think this is a very trivial, small, and unimportant Bill. But the Secretary for Scotland spoke of the great injustice to the British workman of allowing the products of subsidised labour to find their way into this country in competition with the articles which he produces. I think that is a very far-reaching argument indeed. The noble Marquess said he would not
74
go into the question of the sugar bounties. Neither shall I. But taking simply the producer of sugar—I am not now dealing with the question of the advantages to the consumer—it seems to me undoubtedly a hardship that he should have to compete, not with the free labour of other countries, but of that labour supported in the great countries of France and Germany by enormous bounties. I am one of those antiquated Free-traders of which the noble Marquess spoke. I will not, however, occupy the time of the House in the discussion of abstract principles. I will only make the remark that when I hold to the old doctrine that you should look mainly to the interest of the consumers, I do so for this very simple reason, that no man can consume anything without paying for it, and therefore if you consume largely you must produce largely to pay for what you consume. I therefore believe that if a country buys largely of foreign competitors it sells its own produce, because in no other way can it pay for what it buys. I sympathise with my noble Friend Lord Farrer in what he said as to the effect of this Bill upon our prison system. I do not think that is a slight matter. Unless we can employ our prisoners on useful work—and in order to do so we must sell that work if it is over and above what we can consume for State purposes—I believe it will be found impossible to maintain a satisfactory system of prison discipline. I was struck very much indeed by a short Report from the United States which, has been laid on the Table of the House, and from which it appears that in New York they prohibited prison labour absolutely, and the effect on the prison labour was most deplorable in every way. Therefore, whatever opinions may be entertained as to whether prison-made goods should be allowed for sale, it is a, matter for serious reflection indeed, how far you can carry the principle of this Bill in this country or in any other country in regard to the treatment of criminals. To be consistent you ought not to employ convicts on the great dockyards, or in the construction of other great Government works, because for every convict you employ you must necessarily dispossess so much free labour. The question is a very wide one, and for that reason I do not like the principle of the Bill. Its effect, I think, will be next to nothing. It may catch the

75
support of a certain number of ignorant people in the country, who may imagine that you are doing something for labour; but its practical result will be little indeed.
Motion agreed to; Bill Read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the whole House To-morrow.

STIPENDIARY MAGISTRATES JURISDICTION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Read 2a (according to Order), and committed to a Committee of the whole House To-morrow.

LICENSING (SCOTLAND) ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.
LORD BALFOUR, in moving the Second reading of this Bill, said that certain classes of British-made wines, which were technically know as "sweets," were not at present excisable liquors and did not come under the ordinary licensing laws, although many of them contained 70 per cent. of alcohol, the same amount that was contained in most of the wines that were imported. Under the law as it stood there was no power to restrict the sale of those liquors, and therefore they were sold freely on Sundays and at other times when the ordinary public-houses were closed. The object of the Bill was to provide that, as in the case of other wines and spirits, no one could sell those drinks until a certificate had been obtained from the ordinary Justices.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: Does the Bill apply to what are called temperance drinks?
LORD BALFOUR: It does not.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: I am told they contain a large amount of alcohol.
Read a second time (according to Order), and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.

MILITARY MANŒUVRES BILL.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (The Marquess OF LANSDOWNE)*THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (The Marquess OF LANSDOWNE) moved the Second reading of the Bill. He said it had been prepared to enable the
76
War department to give facilities to the troops for the exercise of military manœuvres under conditions resembling, as far as possible, the conditions of actual warfare, without having to resort to special legislation for the purpose. Hitherto, whenever the War Department desired to hold military manœuvres, it had been necessary to obtain the necessary funds from the Treasury—not always a very easy task—and also a special Statute at the hands of Parliament. The difficulty of making sure of such a double event was obvious, and the result had been that since 1875 there had been no manœuvres upon a really considerable scale. The necessity of these military exercises was admitted by all, whether soldiers or civilians, who paid any attention to military matters. Some of them could remember the time when our troops and the troops of foreign countries were armed with weapons which were not very dangerous beyond a range of 100 yards or thereabouts; when battles were fought in close order; and when the necessary drill could probably be acquired without much difficulty within the confines of a barrack yard. But we were now arming our troops with weapons of great range and accuracy, and the formation adopted in the battle-field had become extremely extended, with the result that unless the troops were trained in large areas, and in the open country, they could not acquire the discipline and experience which would be expected of them when they came to be employed in the field. Their Lordships would admit that in a matter of this kind we might have some regard to what prevailed in foreign countries. He was informed that in all the more important Continental nations the whole of the regular army and a considerable part of the reserve were annually trained by means of manœuvres upon an extended scale. There were grand manœuvres, lasting from ten to 30 days; divisional manœuvres, lasting perhaps a fortnight; brigade manœuvres, and so on; and surely we should be culpable if we contemplated opposing to troops trained in this manner British troops to whom such training had been denied. There was one exception, of course, in regard to our own Army, and that was the exception of India, where, owing to the great extent of country available, it

77
was possible without difficulty to train troops in the manner which he had indicated. His noble and gallant friend Lord Roberts had often insisted to him upon the enormous advantage which the Army in India had acquired owing to training of this description, and the great corresponding disadvantage which the Army at home was under from the fact that no such opportunities, or, at any rate, very rare opportunities, of the kind were placed within its reach. For these reasons they thought it necessary to take standing powers to hold military exercises on a large scale, but they did so recognising that in this country it was most necessary that such powers should not be availed of without the amplest precaution to guard owners and occupiers of the land which the troops might traverse, from any injury to which the passage of the troops might expose them. In this country, as they all knew, very large areas were enclosed, and when they got beyond the enclosures they came into contact with two classes of the community, both of whom were naturally very tenacious of their rights—he meant the commoners and the preservers of game. This Bill had been drawn with the object of holding the balance as fairly as possible between what he might call military considerations and the interests of the public. They desired to avoid the necessity for special legislation, but they felt that manœuvres of the kind which they contemplated should not be held without the sanction and authority of Parliament, and therefore they proposed that whenever it was desired to hold such manœuvres an Order in Council should be passed. That Order in Council would authorise the holding of manœuvres within special limits, and they proposed that six months before the date of the manœuvres the draft of the Order should be circulated to the councils of the counties, county boroughs, districts, and parishes lying wholly or partly within the area included in the scope of the Bill. They also proposed that three months beforehand it should be advertised in two local newspapers; and finally, that the Order in Council itself should be for 30 days upon the Table of both Houses of Parliament, and that an Address from both Houses should be carried before it could take effect. When once the Order
78
in Council had been made they proposed that there should be limits of time under which the total duration of the manœuvres should not exceed three months, and under which the same district should not be made use of for the purpose of holding manœuvres more than once in five years. They proposed that the troops should be altogether excluded from certain classes of land, such as farmyards, gardens, orchards, curtilages attached to any dwelling house, or any enclosed woods or plantations, and under no circumstances would the troops be allowed to have access to them. They proposed that the lands which should be made available should be specially authorised by a Commission which would be appointed under the Bill. The Commission would consist of two members appointed by the County Council of every county included within the specified limits, one member appointed by the council of any county borough within the area, and a certain number of local owners and occupiers who were to be selected by the Secretary of State. In order that the representatives named by the Secretary of State might not be in a position to out-vote the others, they proposed that they should under no circumstances be equally numerous with the elected representatives. He thought that would satisfy their Lordships that they did not desire, by securing the presence of too large a representation of the official element, to exercise a preponderating influence in the councils of the Commission. This Commission was to authorise the lands, roads, and sources of water of which the troops could make use, and it was also to make regulations for the protection of persons and property within those areas. There was a clause under which they provided compensation to persons who might sustain injury owing to the presence of the troops. They had drawn this clause in the most liberal spirit, and they provided that full compensation was to be made for any damage to person or property, or interference with rights or privileges, arising from putting in force any of the provisions of this Act, whether occasioned by the acts or default of the authorised forces, or by the presence of persons who might be attracted to the neighbourhood by the presence of the troops. The compensation officer

79
would be appointed by the Military Manœuvres Commission, and the regulations for the procedure in compensation cases would be framed by the Commission. If in any case there was a difficulty in coming to an agreement they provided for arbitration under the Arbitration Act of 1889. There was also a clause imposing moderate penalties for such offences as obstructing and interfering with the execution of the manœuvres, moving flags or other marks, or cutting telegraph wires. Those were the whole of the more important provisions of the Bill, and he had every hope that, in spite of the lateness of the period at which the Bill came before their Lordships, they would allow it to pass without serious modification.
THE EARL OF WEMYSSsaid that he had always been very anxious for full military efficiency in this country, and he was very anxious that this Bill should pass if it was necessary. But was it necessary? He had not yet been able to see the Bill. Manœuvres were no novelty in this country; they had been held in 1872 or 1873, and for three years we had held manœuvres in this country which he himself had attended. He had never heard, however, of any difficulty with respect to those manœuvres arising from any cantankerous proprietor or tenant, or that the military authorities had the slightest difficulty with regard to the ground that was required. He did not believe that at that time it was found necessary to have an Order in Council, as far as he could recollect; the reason why they were stopped was simply because the Secretary of State declined to pay £60,000 a year for the purpose. He asked whether there were any such powers in India as were asked for in this Bill.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEsaid the noble Earl was under a slight misapprehension. In 1871, when manœuvres were held on Salisbury Plain, and again in 1882 when large manœuvres were held, Bills were passed enabling the troops to hold these exercises, and those Bills were much longer and more complicated than the present Measure. Since then, moreover, the difficulties had enormously increased. The circumstances in India were entirely different—there were large tracts of unoccupied country in which manœuvres
80
could be held without any difficulty. In the case of Germany and most other continental powers there were special measures in force.
THE EARL OF WEMYSSsaid if what the noble Marquess had said was correct, all that he himself had said fell to the ground.
Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.

DISTRICT COUNCILS (WATER SUPPLY FACILITIES) BILL.
VISCOUNT CROSSmoved the Second Reading of this Bill, remarking that the Bill was to enable landowners under the Improvement of Land Act 1864, to contribute towards the expenses of the district council in bringing water to their estates, and to make it a charge on the estate with the consent of the Board of Agriculture.
Read 2a (according to Order), and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.

WICKLOW HARBOUR (ADVANCES) BILL.
THE EARL OF DENBIGH, in moving the Second Reading of this Bill, said the Bill was really a Treasury Bill for the purpose of arranging a consolidated loan of £65,000 to the authorities in Wicklow for the purpose of repairing the present harbour, which had fallen seriously into disrepair. The advance was the result of a compromise come to between the local taxpayers and the Treasury.
Read 2a (according to Order), and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.

ARCHDEACONRY OF LONDON (ADDITIONAL ENDOWMENTS) BILL.
LORD ALDENHAM, in moving the Second Reading of this Bill, said the object of the Bill was to equalise the emoluments of the canonries of St. Paul's, and so to provide an adequate

81
stipend for the Archdeacon of London. In 1811 the Government of the day increased the number of canonries at St. Paul's from throe to four, attaching the new canonry to the Archdeaconry of London. But, thinking that he would probably be a pluralist, they said he must be content with two-thirds of the stipend of the canonry and gave the other third to the Archdeaconry of Middlesex. The Archdeacon of London was not a pluralist; on the contrary, he gave up a living worth £650 a year to undertake the much more arduous duties of Archdeacon of London, which occupied all his time. His work was at least as heavy as that of the other three canons, and the Dean and Chapter, feeling this, desired to make over to him the one-third alluded to, which would make his stipend equal to that of the other canons, who received £1,000 a year each.
Read 2a (according to Order), and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.

EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE BILL.
Read 2a (according to Order), and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Standing Orders Nos. XXXIX. and XLV. to be considered To-morrow, in order to their being suspended for the remainder of the Session.
House adjourned at Ten Minutes before Seven o'clock, till To-morrow, a Quarter past Four o'clock.